A-6 "Intruder" by Razbam

[hog_driver111th]

I didn't go through all 23 pages, but one thing I would actually like to see along with the A-6E is a KA-6D tanker... especially with the multi-cockpit. I know I wouldn't have an issue flying up and holding an orbit for my squad mates to hook up to. It would add to the realism.

[ghostdog688]

I didn't go through all 23 pages, but one thing I would actually like to see along with the A-6E is a KA-6D tanker... especially with the multi-cockpit. I know I wouldn't have an issue flying up and holding an orbit for my squad mates to hook up to. It would add to the realism.

 

 

 

It's been mentioned a few times, including myself. It's been pointed out that this would necessitate a separate cockpit layout and some exterior tweaks, almost making them do two sets of models and two slightly different Flight Models. Also I'm not sure how well DCS would model the sudden changes in centre of gravity and fuel balance when the tanker ditches all its fuel.

 

But if those problems aren't major enough for razbam, it would be a nice bonus to add to the module. I too would like to refuel planes returning from a strike, and having a piloted tanker allows things like breaking the tanker pattern for a sick/damaged plane leaking fuel or refuelling a sick bird barely able to maintain altitude.

[AesclepiusCrow]

It's been mentioned a few times, including myself. It's been pointed out that this would necessitate a separate cockpit layout and some exterior tweaks, almost making them do two sets of models and two slightly different Flight Models. Also I'm not sure how well DCS would model the sudden changes in centre of gravity and fuel balance when the tanker ditches all its fuel.

 

I'd hope they'd make it easy on themselves and simply just use total fuel weight. While I would love a complex KA-6D, I'd prefer to see it sometime before doomsday. The to do lists for everyone (see Silver Dragons post) are becoming so lengthy for DCS that I'm willing to sacrifice some levels of detail for medium to high levels of fidelity. Particularly for such a limited use aircraft as the KA-6D.

 

I'd rather be flying a semi-complex model than waiting for a full fidelity sim that can have fidelity patched in over its lifetime.

 

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Edited April 8, 2016 by AesclepiusCrow

[Daimaju]

For me, this is a dream come true.

I always wanted an A-6, this plane is just amazing and unique and has seen a lot of action.

 

Oh man... please... this has to happen! :cry:

[hog_driver111th]

But if those problems aren't major enough for razbam, it would be a nice bonus to add to the module. I too would like to refuel planes returning from a strike, and having a piloted tanker allows things like breaking the tanker pattern for a sick/damaged plane leaking fuel or refuelling a sick bird barely able to maintain altitude.

 

Not to mention having to get the tanker airborne when the guys coming back in from a mission keep missing the wires and start getting a low state.

[ghostdog688]

A-6 "Intruder" by Razbam

 

 

I'd rather be flying a semi-complex model than waiting for a full fidelity sim that can have fidelity patched in over its lifetime.

 

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

A nice idea, but sadly this sometimes necessitates a complete rewrite - look at what happened to the Huey, hawk and the f14 with regards to multi crew. They all had ideas on how it would look and while dcs releases l-39, my impression is that they are going to have to basically wait to see how it takes shape and re-structure that part of the code. Just approximating how it works has left them with twice as much work to do now that multicrew is on the horizon, assuming they decide it's worth the effort it will certainly be a while down the line I expect.

 

If RAZBAM doesn't make an honest attempt at an AFM in the early stages they could make a rod for their back if DCS decides to implement changes designed to improve the models down the line.

 

Always remember that DCS is ultimately in charge of how the code runs. If they want to make it run in a manner the 3rd parties don't expect or if they try to impose a workaround the code that only works for their module, breakage can ensue if/when DCS decides to tweak that aspect of the modelling code. Then we all end up complaining at how horribly broken the model is while the poor devs have to go back to square one.

Edited April 13, 2016 by ghostdog688

[Greekbull]

It's been mentioned a few times, including myself. It's been pointed out that this would necessitate a separate cockpit layout and some exterior tweaks, almost making them do two sets of models and two slightly different Flight Models. Also I'm not sure how well DCS would model the sudden changes in centre of gravity and fuel balance when the tanker ditches all its fuel.

 

But if those problems aren't major enough for razbam, it would be a nice bonus to add to the module. I too would like to refuel planes returning from a strike, and having a piloted tanker allows things like breaking the tanker pattern for a sick/damaged plane leaking fuel or refuelling a sick bird barely able to maintain altitude.

 

I would much rather have a A-6E if they have to choose which it sounds like they likely will from a practicality standpoint. But I would love to see the KA-6D AI aircraft:D

[Vampyre]

I would much rather have a A-6E if they have to choose which it sounds like they likely will from a practicality standpoint. But I would love to see the KA-6D AI aircraft:D

 

If they are able to make a D-704 pod that works with the A-6E then a KA-6D would be superfluous. That being said, in real life, Navy Intruder squadrons usually deployed with at least four KA-6D tankers in addition to the standard attack birds. The KA-6D's had reduced attack capability with the removal of DIANE until the capability was deleted completely in the early 80's. Most of the displays on the B/N side were removed and tanker specific instruments were added. I would like to see both if possible.

[StrongHarm]

EA-6B?!? Oooooo!

[Oubaas]

A-6E DIANE. Yep. Insta-purchase. Don't forget a VA-115 skin.

 

Insta-purchase along with the AV-8B and all future Harrier variants. And I'll probably buy the Tucano, I like the little buzzer. And the Pucara and/or OV-10D+. And I still need to grab the M2000C, of course. And probably pretty much everything else on the RAZBAM production schedule.

 

A SLUF would be nice. Either the A-7A with the TF-30 and old avionics package or the A-7E with the TF-41 and the new avionics package with HUD, CCIP and all. Or both.

 

I may have to assign my direct deposit to Eagle Dynamics. There's so much coming, and I want it all.

 

:D

[RogueRunner]

Instant purchase for me too!

[hannibal]

i hope to gawd this is multiseat.

 

i would love love to be someones copilot bomber..

[Zeus67]

Always remember that DCS is ultimately in charge of how the code runs. If they want to make it run in a manner the 3rd parties don't expect or if they try to impose a workaround the code that only works for their module, breakage can ensue if/when DCS decides to tweak that aspect of the modelling code. Then we all end up complaining at how horribly broken the model is while the poor devs have to go back to square one.

 

Allow me to say this: ED inform us when a mod breaking update is incoming and a new version is required.

 

As a policy, we work with ED and make requests to them for features that are not in-game. We do make workarounds/expansions, but that is for features that we know are in-game but only with basic functionality and thus I am not trying to make DCS do something for which it is not ready yet. IMO it prevents lots of headaches down the road even if we have to wait long times for our requests to be granted.

[Vectury]

First day buy for me.

[ghostdog688]

Allow me to say this: ED inform us when a mod breaking update is incoming and a new version is required.

 

As a policy, we work with ED and make requests to them for features that are not in-game. We do make workarounds/expansions, but that is for features that we know are in-game but only with basic functionality and thus I am not trying to make DCS do something for which it is not ready yet. IMO it prevents lots of headaches down the road even if we have to wait long times for our requests to be granted.

 

 

 

Yes, thanks for responding. I didn't mean this was exactly how you do things, but just that it's a risk any 3rd party dev team on this platform take here: if ED have to make changes to the software in order to better support their own modules, it's then up to you to re-do your work to make it fit in their newly updated environment. This means it's not just a simple case of 'let's make the module do this thing' - it all has to be compatible with existing code and that can hamper you if the existing code doesn't let you do what you'd like to do (multi-crew for example). Even then there's still the chance of a rewrite of the code if it becomes obsolete by a new change or improvement to DCS:W made by ED. while I'm sure they tell you when the changes will be, I doubt they are asking you if that's okay by you - the changes will be happening whether they break your module or not. all you can do is roll with the punches in that case :)

I may, of course, be wrong; this is how it seems from the outside looking in.

Feel free to correct me :)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[drcarnage52]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ActionMav]

I would sell my soul for this module … maybe even for some screenshots

[Nemax]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

NICE! :thumbup:

[ghostdog688]

A-6 "Intruder" by Razbam

 

To be fair if RAZBAM had decided after reading this thread that there "wasn't enough interest" to put it on the dev plan, I probably would have the team sectioned as they would clearly have lost their minds.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TIGER]

[ame]

[/ame]

[agentdarnell]

They did not mention anything last night about the a6 that I can remember, but did confirm the mirage 3, f15e strike eagle, sepecat jaguar, harrier, Tucano. Not to say they won't do it, just don't remember it dimming up.

[ghostdog688]

To be fair, no one asked at the AMA :(

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eight Ball]

Just one question was asked and answered

 

Q: How is the A-6 coming along?

A: current 3d mesh is going to be scrapped and a new one will be done from scratch

[agentdarnell]

Ah ok. Yes I forgot to ask lol. I hope a2g radar gets worked out soon. I am sure a lot of airframe are awaiting that.

[Darkbrotherhood7]

Ah ok. Yes I forgot to ask lol. I hope a2g radar gets worked out soon. I am sure a lot of airframe are awaiting that.

 

1+ agreed

 

In my opinion, the F/A-18C Hornet will be the most important module for DCS. Cuz the A/G radar technology will open the doors for a lot aircrafts. I'm looking forward to the Razbam F-15E.